Reader comments
Gay couples in Utah urged not to sue
428 comments | Read story
to Broken Record | 3:40 p.m. June 18, 2008
OH YES IT IS!
Ted | 3:41 p.m. June 18, 2008
I'm not wrong here and neither are you in your last post. I know of the
case you're talking about and of the subsequent cases. It was based on the
argument of government funding. (Personally I don't care if they receive
gov't funding and still choose to exclude gays, but there is an equal
protection argument that if they receive government funding they shouldn't
discriminate.)
My point is no about the scouts (even though you apparently view them as one and the same with your church). The cases you refer to weren't against a church, or against the boy scouts because of their relationship with any church. My point is (and I am not wrong) that no CHURCH has been denied their tax exempt status because of views on gays, nor is there anything in the marriage decision in California which threatens the tax exempt status of a church. If you believe there is, you have bought into the hyberbolic arguments of a frustrated fringe. (I suspect that's the case because language like "invasion into our private lives" is hyberbole, to say the least.)
My point is no about the scouts (even though you apparently view them as one and the same with your church). The cases you refer to weren't against a church, or against the boy scouts because of their relationship with any church. My point is (and I am not wrong) that no CHURCH has been denied their tax exempt status because of views on gays, nor is there anything in the marriage decision in California which threatens the tax exempt status of a church. If you believe there is, you have bought into the hyberbolic arguments of a frustrated fringe. (I suspect that's the case because language like "invasion into our private lives" is hyberbole, to say the least.)
Comments continue below
:) | 3:44 p.m. June 18, 2008
Remember when "gay" meant "happy"? Those were the days.
Think Aboutit | 3:47 p.m. June 18, 2008
Maybe we should start drawing lines,if your gay and u want to be married move to
california, if your not gay and u want to get married maybe u should try utah.
Its not that hard. If you are gay why do u want to live in utah anyway? Its a
place of religion, it was founded on religion. Is it just me or does it seem
that the gay community is just doing this out of spite.
Straight and Proud | 3:49 p.m. June 18, 2008
What is it going to take for you all to understand how WRONG the gay lifestyle
is?
If a man changes his sexual orientation and becomes a woman, is that natural? Why would any normal person believe the gay lifestyle is okay, just becasue you have those feelings of the opposite sex does not make it right or right to act upon it. Just as we are to learn to deal with stress, combat depression and overcome an addiction... so can someone with the feelings of homosexuality. God has asked us many times in the Bible to work towards becoming better than the natural man, constantly trying to do good and better ourselves. Satan wants people to think that homosexuality is okay. There is no justification in it being right, you're either for God or Against Him, there is no in-between.
If a man changes his sexual orientation and becomes a woman, is that natural? Why would any normal person believe the gay lifestyle is okay, just becasue you have those feelings of the opposite sex does not make it right or right to act upon it. Just as we are to learn to deal with stress, combat depression and overcome an addiction... so can someone with the feelings of homosexuality. God has asked us many times in the Bible to work towards becoming better than the natural man, constantly trying to do good and better ourselves. Satan wants people to think that homosexuality is okay. There is no justification in it being right, you're either for God or Against Him, there is no in-between.
To Tired of being disturbed | 3:50 p.m. June 18, 2008
"Homosexuality hurts every Eve out there as much as it hurts any innocent
soul that would otherwise joy in a healthy family atmosphere." HUH?
OH YES IT IS! | 3:54 p.m. June 18, 2008
If it were about changing the church, why would gays in California be wanting to
get married. Many of them don't even care about the Mormon church. Think
people!
Anonymous | 3:55 p.m. June 18, 2008
you know I just went on to see if there was a reply to my last post and there
was not yet, but that is beside the point. What struck me is I am having the
exact same stupid argument with the exact same type of stupid people I did last
time. The very definition of crazy, so do not bother replying I will not be
back. END THE INSANITY PEOPLE GO BACK TO YOUR LIFES
SHUSH | 3:58 p.m. June 18, 2008
TO: "to Broken Record"
YOUR FACE IS!
YOUR FACE IS!
OmahaMan | 4:01 p.m. June 18, 2008
Marriage/ civil union is what you make of it. Just because homosexuals obtain
the right to marry or have legally recognized civil unions does not change how I
view the sanctity of my own "traditional" marriage.
Yes, I realize that gay marriage frustrates the "Plan of Salvation", and the commandment to "multiply and replenish the Earth." The law of the land should be free to determine what is legal here on Earth. There are many legal and emotional reasons for any type of union. Give me a rational reason why homosexuals should not feel the same way heterosexuals do about marriage and I will be against it. Just because the Bible implies that homosexual relations is an abomination does not prove that a biological/ sexual/ psychological/ emotional bond does not exist between two people of the same sex.
I hope that any religion that does not sanction same-sex marriage would never compromise its standards. Nor do I suspect that the true one ever will.
Yes, I realize that gay marriage frustrates the "Plan of Salvation", and the commandment to "multiply and replenish the Earth." The law of the land should be free to determine what is legal here on Earth. There are many legal and emotional reasons for any type of union. Give me a rational reason why homosexuals should not feel the same way heterosexuals do about marriage and I will be against it. Just because the Bible implies that homosexual relations is an abomination does not prove that a biological/ sexual/ psychological/ emotional bond does not exist between two people of the same sex.
I hope that any religion that does not sanction same-sex marriage would never compromise its standards. Nor do I suspect that the true one ever will.
Mike Mayers | 4:04 p.m. June 18, 2008
To whomever replied to me I appreciate your comments very much. I unlike many
gays love the church very much. I was brought up in it and have many many
loving realative who are members of that church. They however love me for me.
They may not agree with what I do but they love me because I am a human bieng.
My mother, who is a very strong mormon, sees no harm in me being able to marry
my boyfriend of almost 3 years. Just because we have a different love
doesn't mean that I shouldn't be able to have the same rights as
everyone else! It's none of your business if I am married, or in a cival
union, or if they call it something completely different! I just deserve the
same "GOD GIVEN RIGHTS" as a man who wants to be married to a woman.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness! That is what I deserve!
to Think Aboutit | 3:47 p.m | 4:06 p.m. June 18, 2008
I was born and raised here. My family lives here. My grandchildren are here.
I love to camp and fish and golf and hike and...I belong here just as much as
you do. This is America. Can't we all get along and give each other the
right to the pursuit of happiness?
TO :) | 4:07 p.m. June 18, 2008
It still does, just a differnt way. I'm gay and VERY happy.
D Jay | 4:13 p.m. June 18, 2008
Most of the arguments I've read here are obtuse. The "Gay
Marraige" argument is neither about love nor religion. The concept of love
far transcends physical attraction: two brothers could love each other, but does
that mean they should have the right of entering into a marraige together?
Further, love is not a requirement for marraige and never has been (consider
arranged marraiges in some cultures).
Simply because religious institutions have carried the banner of marraige does not make it a religious institution; human society has viewed marraige as a formal, public commitment between one man and one woman since the dawn of history, and likely even before, for the purposes of establishing stable social units and prolonging and expanding society. With few exceptions in some societies (e.g., polygamy), the lines have always been drawn very clearly. Governments have supported this social institution - indeed, a purpose of government is to support social institutions, and not the reverse.
Permitting two men or two women to marry, for whatever reason or circumstance, simply strips the historical, traditional institution of its intrinsic meaning. Being "gay" has nothing to do with the argument.
Simply because religious institutions have carried the banner of marraige does not make it a religious institution; human society has viewed marraige as a formal, public commitment between one man and one woman since the dawn of history, and likely even before, for the purposes of establishing stable social units and prolonging and expanding society. With few exceptions in some societies (e.g., polygamy), the lines have always been drawn very clearly. Governments have supported this social institution - indeed, a purpose of government is to support social institutions, and not the reverse.
Permitting two men or two women to marry, for whatever reason or circumstance, simply strips the historical, traditional institution of its intrinsic meaning. Being "gay" has nothing to do with the argument.
Anonymous | 4:14 p.m. June 18, 2008
People in Salt Lake City must not have very much confidence in themselves, their
neighbors or their children. If they thought their way of life was genuinely
superior they'd be likely to assume that everyone wanted to be like them
not abandon the conventional pattern of 90% of adults.
orfeo | 4:16 p.m. June 18, 2008
To Gus:
One answer is that, while marriage may arguably have religious roots, it has long been the case that many marriages are entered into without any religious element. For many people now, it is simply the primary SOCIAL institution for recognising the existence of a committed couple.
The second answer is that, contrary to what seems to be an implicit assumption behind your question, there are still homosexuals that are religious. Including myself. And there at least some religious leaders out there that share my minority view (one which took me many years to reach I might add), that homosexuality is not in and of itself sinful. So I still hold out hope of a church wedding one day, and as a Christian I would want that.
One answer is that, while marriage may arguably have religious roots, it has long been the case that many marriages are entered into without any religious element. For many people now, it is simply the primary SOCIAL institution for recognising the existence of a committed couple.
The second answer is that, contrary to what seems to be an implicit assumption behind your question, there are still homosexuals that are religious. Including myself. And there at least some religious leaders out there that share my minority view (one which took me many years to reach I might add), that homosexuality is not in and of itself sinful. So I still hold out hope of a church wedding one day, and as a Christian I would want that.
Ryan | 4:17 p.m. June 18, 2008
Straight and Proud,
Of all the ignorant banter you cast upon us, my favorite part was when you said, �God has asked us many times in the Bible to work towards becoming better than the natural man.� You pretty much just said that the �natural man� can be naturally gay. I love it. Thank you.
I have a suggestion. Why don�t all you self righteous jerks start worrying about our own sins? I remember something someone told me about �he, who is without sin, cast the first stone.� Wait a minute, that�s not how we do it here. We have people climbing over each other to throw that first stone. What difference does it make to you if someone else lives a lifestyle that has virtually NO impact on you? And NO, it�s not attacking your marriage.
Of all the ignorant banter you cast upon us, my favorite part was when you said, �God has asked us many times in the Bible to work towards becoming better than the natural man.� You pretty much just said that the �natural man� can be naturally gay. I love it. Thank you.
I have a suggestion. Why don�t all you self righteous jerks start worrying about our own sins? I remember something someone told me about �he, who is without sin, cast the first stone.� Wait a minute, that�s not how we do it here. We have people climbing over each other to throw that first stone. What difference does it make to you if someone else lives a lifestyle that has virtually NO impact on you? And NO, it�s not attacking your marriage.
TO OH YES IT IS | 4:19 p.m. June 18, 2008
You need to think and look up the history of the gay pride and gay LDS groups in
Hawaii. This has already been mentioned on this site. They wanted in the temple
and wanted gay marriages performed in the Hawaii Temple. Quit distorting the
history and the truth about what gays want especially in the LDS church. There
are so many gays on this site that are arguing. that what they want, has nothing
to do with the LDS church. So why are YOU AND THEY DEMANDING that we change
our perspective of what is going on? Quite simply, you want total forceable
acceptance of the gay lifestyle in the LDS church. I believe the Lord would
rather close and shutter every temple on the earth that ever have it defiled by
a gay marriage in His Holy House. But, it is what the gays think they are going
to eventually get.
@ Think Aboutit | 4:19 p.m. June 18, 2008
Believe it or not, some of us were born and raised here. Utah is my home, my
family and friends are all here, as well as my job. I love it here and
can't imagine living anywhere else. And instead of running away or even
being driven out, I choose to stay and fight for our rights.
There's nothing spiteful about it, but if making it spiteful helps you rationalize your dislike and distain of the gay community, and helps you and others feel like your the "victim", then by all means go for it.
Like I have said before, I was at Pride this year and was AMAZED AND EXCITED by all the hetero families that were there!! Parents who were teaching their children that DIFFERENT DOESN'T EQUAL BAD! Your children are the one's whos attitudes are changing, and who will in turn change the world. That includes the attitudes toward gay marriage.
There's nothing spiteful about it, but if making it spiteful helps you rationalize your dislike and distain of the gay community, and helps you and others feel like your the "victim", then by all means go for it.
Like I have said before, I was at Pride this year and was AMAZED AND EXCITED by all the hetero families that were there!! Parents who were teaching their children that DIFFERENT DOESN'T EQUAL BAD! Your children are the one's whos attitudes are changing, and who will in turn change the world. That includes the attitudes toward gay marriage.
OmahaMan | 4:19 p.m. June 18, 2008
To: Straight and Proud,
Can you stop being heterosexual? Let our homosexual friends in on your secret, if you succeed.
Can you stop being heterosexual? Let our homosexual friends in on your secret, if you succeed.
Birdlover | 4:22 p.m. June 18, 2008
If two Eagles wanted to marry eachother, I think they should not be allowed to
sue the State. Which one would care for the adopted egg, I wouldn't want to
be the one to sit on that darn thing if it were me, poor bird!
to TO :) | 4:22 p.m. June 18, 2008
well. isn't that special
YBU | 4:24 p.m. June 18, 2008
Thank you, OmahaMan for having an open heart. Your comments are not derogatory
yet I know that you are a man that cherishes his own marriage and can understand
why others would want to have a commitment like that. Thanks again.
Lois | 4:24 p.m. June 18, 2008
There are discriptions of sex acts in this comment stream...D-News, are you good
with that?
To To Ted | 4:26 p.m. June 18, 2008
The question was about allowing Gays in the Boy Scouts as scouts and as leaders.
Heteorsexual Preditors are not the discussion here. That comment strays from
the topic. It is preposterous to assume that a predator comment justifies
similarities to the arguments posed by the Boy Scouts as to why they did not
want gays in their organization ( which by the way proves that gays have an
agenda to invade heteorsexual organizations and destroy them for their own
pleasure and selfishness). The Boy Scout contended that they has a long
standing tradition of a belief in a Supreme Being that held out standard to His
Children's behavior and character. Gays wanted that tradition taken down
and destroyed in their cases against the Boy Scouts. They have agenda to change
the Scouts and the LDS church. Try and deny it but truth is truth no matter how
you try and argue it with slick wording.
re think aboutit | 4:35 p.m. June 18, 2008
I never said u dont belong here anymore than i do. There is a time and a place
for everyone. Im vegan and i dont go into a steak house demanding a vegan
pleasing menu, i know where to go to get what i want. California may just be the
place to get what u want! We belong where we know we can get what we want.
orfeo | 4:42 p.m. June 18, 2008
Second post...
I'm fascinated and mystified by the number of people who think that marriage's primary purpose is for having children.
I have no argument with the proposition that a stable, committed relationship is the best environment in which to raise children, but... what is wrong with the proposition that a stable, committed relationship is good in and of itself.
And yet again, I wonder whether people actually ever open their Bibles and read them carefully. The union of Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:18-24, with the famous bit about becoming one flesh) doesn't say anything about children!!! The whole be fruitful and multiply bit is in a different passage in Genesis 1. Rather, the Genesis 2 passage everyone seems to half-remember starts with God saying "It is not good for the man to be alone". It's about relationship. NOT Children.
Here endeth the lesson.
I'm fascinated and mystified by the number of people who think that marriage's primary purpose is for having children.
I have no argument with the proposition that a stable, committed relationship is the best environment in which to raise children, but... what is wrong with the proposition that a stable, committed relationship is good in and of itself.
And yet again, I wonder whether people actually ever open their Bibles and read them carefully. The union of Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:18-24, with the famous bit about becoming one flesh) doesn't say anything about children!!! The whole be fruitful and multiply bit is in a different passage in Genesis 1. Rather, the Genesis 2 passage everyone seems to half-remember starts with God saying "It is not good for the man to be alone". It's about relationship. NOT Children.
Here endeth the lesson.
McKenzie | 4:42 p.m. June 18, 2008
I am very attracted to other people's husbands and I can't help it!
When Gay marriage is in full effect, marriage will be a joke and then I am
coming for your husband! Sorry I am an adulterer, and I have been told that I
can't change! I am in so much pain! You all have to make me feel better by
making adultery okay! Please I have such a hard life!
help | 4:47 p.m. June 18, 2008
"You need to think and look up the history of the gay pride and gay LDS
groups in Hawaii. "
I googled it and nothing about wanting in the LDS temple came up. Can you give me a reference so that I can read it?
I googled it and nothing about wanting in the LDS temple came up. Can you give me a reference so that I can read it?
To Lois | 4:53 p.m. June 18, 2008
Oh yes, all is well in zion!
Hey Ryan! | 4:55 p.m. June 18, 2008
Your gay lifestyle which you think has "vertually no impact" on
everyone is completely false. If that were so, we wouldn't be here talking
about it and the Bible wouldn't preach against it. So if there's no
problem with your lifestyle at all like you say it is, then what's the big
deal with getting hit with the first stone? You're wrong for being gay and
acting upon it and we're wrong for casting the stone, sounds fair to me!
re re think aboutit | 4:55 p.m. June 18, 2008
"We belong where we know we can get what we want. "
We can pursue our happiness anywhere in America - that is what our constitution says. Do you believe it?
We can pursue our happiness anywhere in America - that is what our constitution says. Do you believe it?
Ken | 4:54 p.m. June 18, 2008
Funny thing there, senator, is that when you speak of "favorable"
venues for pushing the pro-gay-marriage agenda, you automatically assume
California is one of them, when, in fact, it is not.
I was there in 2000 when over 60% of Californians voted emphatically that marriage was and is only an institution between a man and a woman. Yet, the tail continues to try to wag the dog, and thanks to a few justices who have legislated without authority, Californians have been told that gay marriage is, apparently, for them.
So, by crook, hook, and the usurpation of democracy, gay rights advocates continue to not only undermine the moral fabric of society, but the political process itself. By continuing to ignore the will of the people (as mercurial as it sometimes may be), those same advocates further guarantee the passing of the eventual constitutional amendment that will bury them in an avalanche far deeper than they would have been had they done it through proper legal channels.
I was there in 2000 when over 60% of Californians voted emphatically that marriage was and is only an institution between a man and a woman. Yet, the tail continues to try to wag the dog, and thanks to a few justices who have legislated without authority, Californians have been told that gay marriage is, apparently, for them.
So, by crook, hook, and the usurpation of democracy, gay rights advocates continue to not only undermine the moral fabric of society, but the political process itself. By continuing to ignore the will of the people (as mercurial as it sometimes may be), those same advocates further guarantee the passing of the eventual constitutional amendment that will bury them in an avalanche far deeper than they would have been had they done it through proper legal channels.
I am curious | 4:59 p.m. June 18, 2008
Why do gays want to continue to denegrate the LDS church's stand on gays
and want to be completly accepted into the LDS faith with all rights and
privileges given by the Lord through His prophets, when all the covenants lead
to the New and Everlasting covenant of Eternal Marriage? If you are gay and get
married, how can you ever expect to have a temple or eternal marriage as a gay
couple knowing the Lord has denounced this practice through his prophets and in
His Proclamation on the Family.So one assume that LDS gays are in full knowledge
of rejecting the Lord's counsel and realizing that their gay marriage will
stop permanently at death. Are gays living the motto of Milton's poem
that states " It is better to reign in hell than serve in Heaven."
hiding something | 5:01 p.m. June 18, 2008
People who obsess about what gay people do or don't do and cannot get get
beyond that, most likely are hiding their latent gayness.
I thought EVERYBODY knew that.
I thought EVERYBODY knew that.
Larry | 5:03 p.m. June 18, 2008
No one is denied any constitutional right. Everyone can marry in Utah if they
want. You just have to get married to a person of the opposite sex. If you
define the right to get married to anyone you love then that opens up a whole
can of worms/
Poor McKenzie | 5:07 p.m. June 18, 2008
Adultry is not illegal. You can chase all the husbands you want. If they want
you, good for you. If they don't, good for them. If you want to marry
them, as soon as they are single, you can. You are not making sense.
If you are trying to prove that homosexuals should just learn to control their desires, you simply do not understand.
This is not about desires. Homosexuals can live together right. This is about love and commitment and having the legal right to marry. Marriage is more than sex.
If you are trying to prove that homosexuals should just learn to control their desires, you simply do not understand.
This is not about desires. Homosexuals can live together right. This is about love and commitment and having the legal right to marry. Marriage is more than sex.
To help | 5:08 p.m. June 18, 2008
Go to archives of Seattle Post Intelligencer and Seattle Times. Also, go to the
News Archives in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and read
directives to Mission and Area Presidency Concerning Proposition of Gay Marriage
in the State of Hawaii proposal. If you need more help contact a long standing
member of the church who has lived in Hawaii for the past twenty years. It was
a huge mess over there for the church members as they were sometimes harrass as
they entered the church on Sunday or youth night by Gay rights activits and at
the Hawaii Temple. Google Searching is a lazy way to get real information. You
need to research. In the early 1990s the internet was not posting vast amounts
of news information as it does today. This tells me you are in your twenties or
thirties and are not fully aware of the evolution of the internet and its former
information sites. Most New media do not have their archives that far but if
you do the RESEARCH you will find all that you need to know of the gays in
Hawaii and the church.
Anonymous | 5:11 p.m. June 18, 2008
Youtube has a very good interview with a gay Mormon -
a gay mormon perspective
Check it out.
a gay mormon perspective
Check it out.
Re Re Re Me | 5:14 p.m. June 18, 2008
All you people need to reach the gray path. The middle way! Choose your extreme
and the other side will always eatcha down. I love sitting on the fence watching
to dumb dogs bark thier brains out at eachother! Gays who hate mormons are just
as bad as mormons who hate gays. All this barking is born out of hate and spite
on both sides and that is tha final word.
P in Mexifornia | 5:23 p.m. June 18, 2008
As a transplant to Mexifornia- I have a front row seat to the insanity that
exists out here. It's a freaking circus of craziness- up is down and black
is white out here. Gay marriage, medical marijuana, uncontrolled illegal
immigration, skyrocketing crime, unmitigated State entitlement programs, huge
budget deficits. This State is truely the land of fruits an nuts- and gay
marriage- (an oxymoron by the way) is the cherry on this crazy cake.
Re: Comment at 4:55: | 5:23 p.m. June 18, 2008
Please show me where in the US Constitution it guarantees the pursuit of
happiness for all Americans?
BLJT | 5:24 p.m. June 18, 2008
To Ken,
Since the 2000 vote though, the democratically elected legislature in California has TWICE enacted gay marriage. Is that also "usurpation of the will of the people"? If yes, how much time needs to pass before the legislature can revisit a law? or do you propose we abolish legislatures and do everything by referendum?
Incidentally, Gov. S. vetoed the bill both times, saying he believed the state supreme court should hear the case.
Since the 2000 vote though, the democratically elected legislature in California has TWICE enacted gay marriage. Is that also "usurpation of the will of the people"? If yes, how much time needs to pass before the legislature can revisit a law? or do you propose we abolish legislatures and do everything by referendum?
Incidentally, Gov. S. vetoed the bill both times, saying he believed the state supreme court should hear the case.
re Ken | 5:25 p.m. June 18, 2008
Did you forget the CA Legislature in the last year or so passed legislation
allowing for equal marriage rights, only to have it vetoed by Arnold, who said
it should be decided by a vote OR by the Supreme Court. The Legislature
certainly did--are THEY activists trying to usurp the will of the people of CA
or do you simply have a selective memory?
Hey Curious | 5:27 p.m. June 18, 2008
Nothing in this underlying article says anything about gays wanting full
acceptance into the LDS Church. Please stop exporting non-issues.
Lesbian | 5:32 p.m. June 18, 2008
Yes, I can't wait to get married in your temples and teach your primary
chidren. Yoosa!
To poor McKenzie | 5:34 p.m. June 18, 2008
So it is more that sex for gays in their marriage? Really, what? If you are
committed, what is a piece of paper with the word marriage on it? This is about
gays getting rights that only a family unit raising dependent offspring are
entitled to historically. Marriage has been an institution centered around
raising children. Anthropology ought to be taught on this site as so many gays
are using the "committment line" for their excuse to get legally
married. This is about money from government agencies such as Social Security,
Welfare, etc. Follow the money and power- taken from others and given to gay
groups in this argument. It is what the gays are really after.
McKenzie | 5:34 p.m. June 18, 2008
YOu are right! I can commit adultery right now, but when gay marriage passes and
marriages don't mean anything anymore it will be so much EASIER! And
again, I can't help myself. I have tried to change. So I think society
should not look down on adulterers anymore because I am in so much pain!
Anonymous | 5:44 p.m. June 18, 2008
Husband and husband?
Am I the only one who thinks that sounds crazy?
30 years ago everyone - even the medical, psychiatric, psychological associations - agreed that homosexuality was a sickness, a mental illness, a deviance.
Why are we so much smarter today? Has the fabric of our society improved over these past 30 years as we have moved "forward" to tolerate, accept, embrace and now celebrate this lifestyle?
I'm not saying the increasing acceptance of homosexuality is the only factor destroying the fabric of society. But that fabric is clearly unraveling, and there does seem to be a connection.
Am I the only one who thinks that sounds crazy?
30 years ago everyone - even the medical, psychiatric, psychological associations - agreed that homosexuality was a sickness, a mental illness, a deviance.
Why are we so much smarter today? Has the fabric of our society improved over these past 30 years as we have moved "forward" to tolerate, accept, embrace and now celebrate this lifestyle?
I'm not saying the increasing acceptance of homosexuality is the only factor destroying the fabric of society. But that fabric is clearly unraveling, and there does seem to be a connection.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Utah state Sen. Scott McCoy talks during a domestic partner registry debate in February.
- Teen girl killed in Kaysville crash 1:22 a.m.
- 1A All-state honorable mention 1:19 a.m.
- 2A All-state honorable mention 1:12 a.m.
- 3A All-state honorable mention 1:10 a.m.
- 4A All-state honorable mention 1:02 a.m.
- 5A All-state honorable mention 12:59 a.m.
- HIV study asks BYU biologist to help 12:57 a.m.
- Orem pair getting a rep for crime 12:56 a.m.
- McCoy to resign from Utah Senate 12:55 a.m.
- USU vs. BYU this decade 12:54 a.m.
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game
- BYU says Hall incident resolved
- Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore
- Witness: Mitchell wanted attention
- 'Grandfamilies' a growing trend
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling
- MWC '09 season in review
- Jazz win 6th in 7 games
- Jazz ready to be without Harpring
- Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
906 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime483
- Hall reprimanded by MWC404
- Max Hall issues apology387
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal349
- Utes won't respond to Hall276
- BYU says Hall incident resolved238
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game161
- BYU is champion of the state143
- Religion in politics is tiresome129
My husband was teaching his 6th-grade class in Salt Lake last year when...
Latest comments
You would obviously only have second hand information about Obama's foreign...
I don't understand why we can't destroy opium fields, and cut off other main...
You need to join Dennis as co-poster child in the, "Max was actually right,"...
As an active member and Past Master of the Blue Lodge, and as the lone active...
Just get feztheb more minutes.
I remember as a student at BYU, President Jeffrey R. Holland reprimanding the...
Tired, not because he's not conservative enough (which he isn't), but because...
Sure. President Obama uses the fear card in an attempt to help the american...
Okurs not that bad when he isn't tired, or trying to save his energy; its...
Advertisements
I think anyone in a position of authority in such an organization should succumb to a background check. If there is nothing to hide, there should be no problem. Only problem comes when a sexual preditor sees any organization as a field to be harvested -- I don't think it has anything to do with being gay, because preditors come in all sorts of disguises.